[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You mean that hokey 'documentary' that tells us the terrorist threat is a myth, made up by "Neoconservatives" , there are no sleeper cells, there is no al-Qaeda.

Why should it be given any credence?

I'd have to watch it again, but I don't think that's quite what it said. As I recall, the position taken in that documentary was that the al-Qaeda as it is presented to us doesn't exist. That the threat is trumped up as a method to control the populace. That many otherwise isolated events were artificially linked together to further the false perception of al-Qaeda.

I'll watch it again when I get home though. I should probably do that anyway as I only watched it once before and it's hard to be objective the first time you watch something.

But regardless of what it says, why should it be given any less credence than any of the other sources presented? Presumably just as much research and thought went into producing the Power of Nightmares as any of the books or articles mentioned.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

No question. Another example is his hopping on the Palestinian bandwagon after ignoring it. But I think if you try to strip all that away, what really gets them is what Pape says - the US in their lands.

I think there are other layers of explanations, perhaps bin Laden's personal ambition. One that I've always liked is that the Middle East has in the past had one of the greatest civilizations in the world, probably the first advanced civilization, but that promise hasn't been realized in the modern world. Those broken expectations are a prominent theory of aggression on an individual level, and I think a kind of "cultural inferiority" might explain the appeal of bin Laden to some radicals who are ticked off about their status.

What I don't like is the idea that "they're insane psychos" or "they hate us for our freedoms." It's a serious mistake to stereotype or underestimate your enemy's rationality. There's no reason to believe that bin Laden or any of the terrorists are insane, or that they have no coherent reason for their actions.

I also don't buy the theologically-based explanations that you sometimes hear from devout Christians, that Islam is inherently violent. Religion is too malleable to be pinned down like that, and there's a long tradition of Islam that doesn't jibe with that analysis.

So there you go, have at it.

I would never say that Islam is inherently violent. At least not uniquely so. But the version advocated by people like Bin Laden is inherently violent. You can see this not only in what he does but also in his litany of supposed wrongs. There's an interesting little parallel in the fatwa you linked to. Bin Laden cites the massacre of Muslims in Bosnia. He blames it on the US, which of course, is nuts. The US intervened on the side of the Muslims. But the parallel is the justification used by the Serbs to carry out their ethnic cleansing goes all the way back to the wars against Islam in the 13th century in what is today Kosovo. Bin Laden carries the same kind of insane blood grudge as the Christian Serbs and like them his laundry list of slights goes back centuries. So to suppose this is all about the US in Saudi Arabia really doesn't do him justice. It sounds to me like an American liberal's projection.

You are right when you point out that most of this stems from resentment that Islam stopped being a preeminent civilization centuries ago. That is exactly the point of the book I pointed you to which is a good illustration of where this extremist ideology sprung from. But understanding that fact doesn't lead us very far toward solving it. Bin Ladenism is fueled by resentment and anger, but it doesn't really offer any way for Islam to progress. That's why it manifests itself in nihilistic violence. It focuses on America because America is a potent symbol of everything they oppose. That's why Bin Laden lumps the Chechen war in with the Palestinians and blames it all on the US. It's one big hotch pot of worldwide resentment that he hopes to tap into.

As I said before, I think you could meet every one of his supposed grudges (even the insane ones, like his claim that Muslims should get Spain back) and it wouldn't and indeed couldn't satisfy them. At the end of the day, we'd still be here and just by being here we'd be an influence that would drive them crazy. And what I mean by "we" goes far beyond America. What they want is a pure Islamic world. Such a world can't be created in the modern world with modern communications and the modern free flow of ideas let alone when millions of Muslims live in the heart of the West. Even under the Taliban a country as isolated as Afghanistan had outside influences. So as long as such a fundamentalist belief exists, they will always attack no matter what we do, unless we simply give up our way of life (which of course, isn't going to happen). So this isn't a clash of civilizations so much as a crisis internal to one of them. Ultimately, this crisis within Islam is going to have to be resolved by Muslims. They will have to themselves finally tackle this death cult within and corrupting Islam.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I said before, I think you could meet every one of his supposed grudges (even the insane ones, like his claim that Muslims should get Spain back) and it wouldn't and indeed couldn't satisfy them. At the end of the day, we'd still be here and just by being here we'd be an influence that would drive them crazy. And what I mean by "we" goes far beyond America. What they want is a pure Islamic world. Such a world can't be created in the modern world with modern communications and the modern free flow of ideas let alone when millions of Muslims live in the heart of the West. Even under the Taliban a country as isolated as Afghanistan had outside influences. So as long as such a fundamentalist belief exists, they will always attack no matter what we do, unless we simply give up our way of life (which of course, isn't going to happen). So this isn't a clash of civilizations so much as a crisis internal to one of them. Ultimately, this crisis within Islam is going to have to be resolved by Muslims. They will have to themselves finally tackle this death cult within and corrupting Islam.

I've highlighted in bold the points I think are worth fleshing out.

Let's suppose Simey is correct in saying that bin Laden wants a "pure Islamic world." The question is: Is this at all possible?

Of course not, and Simey acknowledges that such a world as bin Laden dreams for just isn't possible.

And for once, Simey and I are in agreement.

But I think he misses the point which this opportunity of a reality check presents.

Let's imagine for a moment bin Laden and his followers manage to remove our troops and our influence from the prize he covets most, Saudi Arabia. And let us further grant that even with this great goal achieved it "wouldn't and couldn't satisfy them."

What I think is missing here is the recognition that what they would have to first and foremost concern themselves with is the *satisfaction* of the very people they would now have real ruler-ship over -- the Saudi Arabian people.

Not only would this take time to organize, more than likely it would prove to be much more difficult to hold it together in a way that would prove all that satisfying to the Saudi people.

Here again is where I'd like to point out a real life experiment of what would likely happen in Saudi Arabia under the ruler ship of bin Laden is what has come to pass in Iran.

Nutcases don't make for good leaders when and where it counts -- among the very people they would need to rule first.

Ultimately, this crisis within Islam is going to have to be resolved by Muslims. They will have to themselves finally tackle this death cult within and corrupting Islam.

I heartily agree with Simey. But where we disagree is in believing that this can happen at all while we are parked in their yard with our tanks & guns.

I know I wouldn't like it either.

(Never mind our oil addiction which corrupts our foreign policy into propping up a corrupt monarchy to ensure our fix; a monarchy which professes an adherence to and indeed supports the very cancer of Islamic extremism that bred bin Laden in the first place.)

One does hope that the people of Muslim faith will one day lick this sickness within their religious culture, but I don't expect that it will happen so long as we are involved in their affairs as we are now. We need to lick our own sicknesses too.

[SimpleLife]

Of interest

JASON BURKE: I think the term al-Qaeda, particularly now, is of dubious use when trying to describe the phenomenon of contemporary Islami Suni Muslim militancy. Al-Qaeda is commonly perceived to be a tight-knight terrorist organization led by bin Laden. Something that comes close to that description existed in Afghanistan between around 1997 and 2001. That entity no longer exists. What we have now is something far more diverse -- a whole series of groups, cells, and even individuals who are dissimilar in many ways, but are united by certain fundamental ideological ideas, and a particular way of viewing the world. Broadly, if you want or if you need an al-Qaeda as a label, then I think it should be applied to that broad movement, rather than one specific group. I think if you continue to conceive of the threat from militant Islam as coming from one specific group, then attempts to end that threat are likely to be misjudged as a result. And tactics based on this assumption could -- at the very best -- prolong the war against terror or a victorious war against terror, and at the worst could be counter-productive.

BUZZFLASH: Would there be a serious threat from Islamic fundamentalists against the West -- those fundamentalists who believe in jihad -- without bin Laden? In short, to what extent has he become a bogeyman for the Bush administration?

BURKE: Islamic militancy has roots that go back to the mid-19th century, possibly the 13th century, possibly the 7th century. It has roots in socioeconomic, cultural, political, theological factors in the Islamic world. This is a historical phenomenon. It’s not been created by one man and one organization.

Even in the short term, Islamic militancy existed in the early ’90s in a very virulent way. We had attacks in America on the World Trade Center. There were attacks in Paris. There were attacks in Pakistan. There were attacks in Saudi Arabia, in the Yemen. There was a huge insurgency in Egypt. There was a brutal and violent civil war in Algeria, which occurred after an Islamic group -- a political group -- was effectively banned from taking power. None of these things, none of these attacks, were the work of bin Laden. Even the 1993 attack by Ramzi Yusef on the World Trade Center, which is often linked to bin Laden, was the work of other militants, in my view. I looked at this in some depth when I was living and working in Pakistan. Bin Laden’s involvement in Islamic militancy at the time was tangential. What he did between ’97 and 2000 was to provide a focus for many of the trends within Islamic militancy. Now that his effective capability is heavily diminished, those trends in militancy still exist and are prospering in the new, radicalized, post-2001 world.

and

LO: Is there any aspect of what you have described that is regrouping and strengthening its position?

JB: Yeah. My argument would be this.

Define Al-Qaeda in two ways, and I'm quite happy with either definition as long as we're aware of what we're using.

You can either have Al-Qaeda as this small group I'm talking about, this hardcore around bin Laden, that evolved very late on in the development of modern Islamic militancy, and to my mind has now disappeared.

Since 2001, I would say that their role in what is happening today, or their role in the threats and various bombs there have been, is negligible.

Bin Laden is peripheral. His practical ability to commission or organize terror has been minimized. Many of those operatives who were drawn to him in the late 1990s have been killed or imprisoned.

Others have had their efficiency vastly curtailed by the hugely enhanced monitoring by various secret services and cooperation between security authorities.

So the hardcore Al-Qaeda...defined in that narrow sense, is over effectively as a really powerful force in modern Islamic militancy.

But if you're talking about Al Qaeda as in a general phenomena, as in something far broader, something that involves groups all over the world, many of which predate bin Laden's involvement in Islamic militancy by decades. Others that have sprung up subsequently to the end of 2001. Others that can be seen as individuals who are attracted by bin Laden's ideas and bin Laden's tactics.

If you're looking at Al Qaeda in that sense...then it's immeasurably strengthened, and has been by the war on terror.

Now the link here is...what the Islamic militants -- and it's not just bin Laden, but a whole range of other ideologues -- set out to do.

It's a myth that they set out to bring the American nation, or any western nation...to its knees through military attack [or] asymmetric warfare.

The aim of attacks is to radicalize and mobilize those people in the Islamic world who have so far ignored or rejected their message.

The attacks are propaganda. That's why they're so spectacular, that's why they're designed to be mediatized so heavily. The deaths, tragic atrocious deaths, are for bin Laden, a bonus.

What he's really interested in is rousing, radicalizing and mobilizing people in the Middle East. And in that he's the same as any political activist.

[mr. natural]

Here's a story in today's Boston Globe that cites two studies - one by the Saudi Arabian government and another by an Israeli think tank - which make similar conclusions to what some of us have always worried about and suggested: That the war in Iraq has exacerbated fanaticism among muslims (primarily sunni arab), particularly in response "to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from 'crusaders' and 'infidels,'" who just also happen to now be military occupiers - or usurpers - of Islamic holy land.

All of this jibes with the historical nuances that Jason Burke speaks of (as did BRussell make note of).

Among the highlights:

"...interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.
...

''The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today," said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study. ''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world."

Case studies of foreign fighters indicated they considered the Iraq war an attack on the Muslim religion and Arab culture, Paz said.
For example, while the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were largely condemned by clerics as violations of Muslim law, many religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations have promulgated fatwas, or religious edicts, saying that waging jihad in Iraq is justified by the Koran because it is defensive in nature. Last October, 26 clerics in Saudi Arabia said it was the duty of every Muslim to go and fight in Iraq.
...

Ali Alyami, director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, said he believes the deep-seated Sunni-Shia rift among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims -- about 1 billion of them Sunni -- best explains the foreign-fighter phenomenon. He noted in an interview that US policy makers do not seem to grasp the historic conflicts within Islam that are playing out in the war in Iraq.
''To say we must fight them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston implies there is a finite number of people, and if you pen them up in Iraq you can kill them all," said Bergen. ''The truth is we increased the pool by what we did in Iraq."

Intelligence officials worry that some of ''Iraq alumni" will use the relationships they build on the battlefields of Iraq and return to their home countries as hardened Islamic terrorists.

The CIA's National Intelligence Council concluded in a report earlier this year that ''Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills, and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."[/b]

As for a bottom line, I think Jason Burke tells it like it is:

"It's a myth that they set out to bring the American nation, or any western nation...to its knees through military attack [or] asymmetric warfare.

"The aim of attacks is to radicalize and mobilize those people in the Islamic world who have so far ignored or rejected their message.

"The attacks are propaganda. That's why they're so spectacular, that's why they're designed to be mediatized so heavily. The deaths, tragic atrocious deaths, are for bin Laden, a bonus.

"What he's really interested in is rousing, radicalizing and mobilizing people in the Middle East. And in that he's the same as any political activist."

To which I would add that the goal here is simply to get us out of their lands and affairs.

[mr. natural]

As a follow-up to the observations made above, I'm including a quote made by SimeyTheLimey in the Terrorism's root causes thread. And I'm doing this because I find that thread redundant to this one.

Robert Pape's thoughts were first raised here, but seeing as neither Simey nor anyone else has thought to argue here the idea that if western powers were gone as foreign policy/military usurpers in lands they consider holy to Islam, al Qaeda's most potent propaganda leg, as suggested by the above articles, would be removed; leading to the real possibility that most of - and perhaps all - of the non-middle east suicide attacks - as happened in London recently - wouldn't occur. However, Simey did think in the other thread to argue Pape's point with the following thoughts:

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Pape strikes me as making far too much of a well-known coincidence and failing to differentiate by target. In assymetrical warfare, the weaker side usually resorts to desperate measures...

The question is, why is it being used against civilians who don't have superior firepower and who aren't well-defended? Why blow yourself up in a subway in London when there is no pressing military need to do so? ...There is something else here that Pape is dismissing. Something that drives people to kill uselessly, and to deliberately kill themselves in the process.

That something is a religious ideology... I don't see why people like Pape have to go so far out of their way to deny the obvious.

First of all, after suggesting that in an "asymmetrical warfare, the weaker side usually resorts to desperate measures," Simey contradicts himself by then suggesting: "there is no pressing military need to do so."

Against all the evidence to the contrary Simey would have us think we are waging WWII, whereby the ideology and boundaries of the combatants are as clear cut as then and everyone honorably adheres to some sort of Geneva Convention about what is ok.



One would think that since 9/11 and all the legal fuss about Abu Gharib & Gitmo all this would have made us realize otherwise. In fact, it is highly likely that Simey has argued this very fact if one cares to shift through all his prior posts.

Secondly, Simey would have us think that Pape *dismisses,* indeed "denies," the "obvious" understanding or connection of "religious ideology" to this terrorist suicide bombing phenomenon.

I would argue that Pape doesn't *deny* this in the least -- it is in fact quite "obvious." But what interests Pape, and what other collaborative studies (see above) strongly suggest is that what really motivates these asymmetrical suicide attacks is the simple fact that we are parked in Islamic holy land with our tanks and guns.

And so in answer to the question: "Why blow yourself up in a subway in London when there is no pressing military need to do so?"

Well, this is where I think the answer is obvious.




As to Simey's suggestion:

The logical conclusion from Pape's argument is that if terrorism is used against you, then you should stop terrorism from being used by always withdrawing and yielding to terrorism.

I would also like to suggest that nothing here is logical, nor does it follow that when and where we "withdraw" would in fact equal "yielding to terrorism."

It is possible in order to defeat your enemy that you need to throw them off-balance.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Simeythelimey

That being so, it isn't surprising that you would see terrorism and suicide bombing against military forces that are superior in firepower and which are well-defended. The question is, why is it being used against civilians who don't have superior firepower and who aren't well-defended? Why blow yourself up in a subway in London when there is no pressing military need to do so? Did the IRA ever turn to suicide bombings? No, they did not, even though they perceive themselves to be under a military occupation. Or in Iraq, why blow up a crowd of children and kill yourself in the process? There is something else here that Pape is dismissing. Something that drives people to kill uselessly, and to deliberately kill themselves in the process.

Simple enough:

As other suicide bombers have said, they may regret the loss of innocent lives in their political, murderous acts - but they atone with their own lives and hope God forgives them. The logic is clear: your security is only assured if ours is. If our women and children are killed, then your women and children are kill

I think it is fair to say that for extremists, the politic and the religious are fused together. That ends any debate as whether it is for one or the other.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Simple enough:

I think it is fair to say that for extremists, the politic and the religious are fused together. That ends any debate as whether it is for one or the other.

You've missed the point I was making. Pape lumps together suicide bombings against hardened military targets with suicide bombings against civilian targets, whether in New York, Washington, DC, Bali, Baghdad, or London. It leads him astray.

The point I was making is that in the context of asymmetrical war against hardened military targets, suicide bombing can be explained by military desperation. To that extent, I am quite sure that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan precipitates suicide tactics. It's not especially necessary to explain it as an occupation, it's simply a byproduct of the asymmetrical nature of the forces involved. Suicide is simply a means of necessity because they don't have better weapons -- just as it was for American GI's in the Ardennes in 1944. I'm not excusing the terrorists in Iraq for what they are doing and what they want to inflict on the Iraqi people or their choice to fight in derogation of international norms. But from a purely military point of view with respect narrowly to their fight against a conventional and vastly stronger military force it is at least explainable.

But what Pape seems to forget is that doesn't explain it all. What drives people to kill themselves and innocent civilians - mostly Iraqis including Iraqi children when they don't need to? What leads to suicide as the preferred means in that case? It's not military necessity. And it isn't rage at an occupation. Other terrorists have fought what they perceived as occupations and haven't been tempted to kill themselves in the process. For example, the IRA. The normal thing in any war is to want to survive and enjoy the victory.

Something drove them to the point where they aren't really fighting an earthly war. That something isn't any form of the left's favorite post-WW-II excuse, the national liberation movement. It's a blood lust driven by an extremely perverted vision of an otherwise mainstream religion. They are fighting a religious war even if we are not.

Because it is a religious war there is no ending it simply by declaring defeat and going home (or the functional equivalent, declaring victory and going home). They will still keep fighting their jihad. The numbers of attacks on hardened US troops might go down, and that might satisfy Pape if all he is interested in is bean-counting without making important qualitative distinctions. But it won't stop the war and won't end the killing of civilians by religious fanatics with a blood lust. The only thing that can do that is change the political and religious climate that brought on this madness in the first place. That begins, and ends in the Middle East.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But what Pape seems to forget is that doesn't explain it all. What drives people to kill themselves and innocent civilians - mostly Iraqis including Iraqi children when they don't need to? What leads to suicide as the preferred means in that case? It's not military necessity. And it isn't rage at an occupation. Other terrorists have fought what they perceived as occupations and haven't been tempted to kill themselves in the process. For example, the IRA. The normal thing in any war is to want to survive and enjoy the victory.

Something drove them to the point where they aren't really fighting an earthly war. That something isn't any form of the left's favorite post-WW-II excuse, the national liberation movement. It's a blood lust driven by an extremely perverted vision of an otherwise mainstream religion. They are fighting a religious war even if we are not.

I disagree. You project your own values on them when you say "they aren't fighting an earthly war". To kill oneself and bringing everything down that is close enough is an act of desperation. That is what desperation is: there is nothing else afterwards/or there is nothing else to be done in the context where the act is happening. The spiritual dimension is a normal one; when in despair, we call for a higher autority for forgiveness and salvations. Atheists may not do that but people with a tiniest bit of religious education will essential try to make contact with a spiritual higher being of some sort.

There is no doubt in my mind that religion and religious texts can provide a lot of rationaler for people to make sense of extreme actions; but to actually make it a religious fervor, there is quite is gap between what people say and what they actually believe. There are numerous group effects documented in social psychology that can explain suicide-bombing more efficiently than simple religious "ferveur".

Religious rationales, even if being part from early on in the process of terrorist-making, is not enough to explain that extreme a behavior.

Because it is a religious war

Well, they do show the same determination as having States in control through their own religion, not that different from Israel, except Islam seems to be more exclusive/xenophobics from the mouth of extremists. For me, Islamic extremists melted the politics and the religious, and once reality will set in, meaning, if they get what they want, the populations will want to fight this extremism because they want democracy. Their democracy.

there is no ending it simply by declaring defeat and going home (or the functional equivalent, declaring victory and going home). They will still keep fighting their jihad. The numbers of attacks on hardened US troops might go down, and that might satisfy Pape if all he is interested in is bean-counting without making important qualitative distinctions. But it won't stop the war and won't end the killing of civilians by religious fanatics with a blood lust.

Well, that is propaganda that lives well on the planks of a theater but has nothing to do with reality.

The only thing that can do that is change the political and religious climate that brought on this madness in the first place. That begins, and ends in the Middle East.

Agreed, but as mentionned before, let's leave Muslims clean house themselves.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's hard to take Islamic terrorists seriously as long as they have a budget of scarcely $2,000.

A few plane tickets. A rocket propelled grenade. A couple pounds of explosives.

lol.

All it gets them is a minute's airtime on CNN and BBC.

A martyr is nothing but a dead guy, after all.

Let's get this war started. Kick some Islamic fundamentalist asses back into the Stone Age....well, farther back than that - seems they're already living in the Stone Age.

Bring it on, terrorists. I have a larger budget than you - I have no religious affiliation - and I since I don't ride trains, subways, or work in Manhattan - you'll never ever get me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Agreed, but as mentionned before, let's leave Muslims clean house themselves.

I would if they either could do so unassisted, or showed much intent to try, or of there was any way to prevent us from suffering the effects of their failure to control a deadly ideology. But the fact is they did fail, the war was declared on us, and we are merely responding. In fact, "fail" is putting it rather charitably. Americans and other westerners have been victimized by terrorism for about 30 years, and the regimes of the region didn't just fail to put an end to it, in many cases, they financed and encouraged it. Our patience ended on 9/11, and that (or worse) kind of thing must and will stop.

You might also want to remember that the main victims of Islamic extremism are other Muslims. This is not us versus them, but the civilized world, including the civilized Muslim world, versus an extreme and insane ideology and its fanatical adherents.

[Troll]

I'm surprised no one has posted this interview with Bin Laden. It answers a lot of the questions posed here.

[mr. natural]

In response to SimpleLife's agreement to the proposition that this Islamic madness is a problem that can only be solved within the culture from which it springs, Simey conflates and confounds the issue.

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I would if they either could do so unassisted, or showed much intent to try, or of there was any way to prevent us from suffering the effects of their failure to control a deadly ideology. But the fact is they did fail, the war was declared on us, and we are merely responding. In fact, "fail" is putting it rather charitably. Americans and other westerners have been victimized by terrorism for about 30 years, and the regimes of the region didn't just fail to put an end to it, in many cases, they financed and encouraged it. Our patience ended on 9/11, and that (or worse) kind of thing must and will stop.

You might also want to remember that the main victims of Islamic extremism are other Muslims. This is not us versus them, but the civilized world, including the civilized Muslim world, versus an extreme and insane ideology and its fanatical adherents.

Where to begin?

How about with this quote from Simey only a few spots above the latest:

Ultimately, this crisis within Islam is going to have to be resolved by Muslims. They will have to themselves finally tackle this death cult within and corrupting Islam.

According to Simey, this is "ultimately" a "crisis within Islam [that] is going to have to be resolved by Muslims."

And yet, on the other hand, he doesn't trust that "they" are capable to "do so unassisted," nor believe that they have shown "much intent to try," even though we were somehow rather *patient* -- but not very much else it would appear that might have been truly useful or helpful to us or them.

So, in order to show how our "patience" was at a complete logical end, we *merely responded* by taking out a secular dictator of brutal renown and his regime which had nothing to do with 9/11 or the group behind it, while leaving intact the very regime of Islamic fundamentalism which "financed and encouraged" this branch of deadly ideology.

Furthermore, one is supposed to understand how we are now *assisting* this ethnic and religiously splintered war torn country in how to end this "death cult" by bringing to bear our own benevolent version of a "death cult," under the guise of a Peace, Freedom & Democracy crusade, expecting that these innocent people will try harder to fix a problem that they had nothing to do with.

Alas, all of this reminds me of a 18th century story about a protopsychiatrist who developed an infallible method of distinguishing the sane from the insane. Those to be diagnosed he locked in a room with water taps on one side and a supply of mops and buckets on the other. He then turned on the water taps and watched: Those who he considered mad ran for the mops and buckets; the sane walked over and turned off the taps.

I leave it to you to figure out which corner Simey paints himself into. However, it does appear that our mop & bucket loonies have yet to even begin thinking of turning off our polluted tap in this insanity.

[FulcrumPilot]

Violence as a means to attain political or religious ends cannot be sustained. The snake will eat its own tail in the process, so to speak. I think islamic fundamentalism fuelled by all these several factions will erode over due time. History supports this arquement overall.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I would if they either could do so unassisted, or showed much intent to try, or of there was any way to prevent us from suffering the effects of their failure to control a deadly ideology.

Well, I think they, the Muslims, know a lot about the toxicity of the actual political systems of their country. Like everyone, they want the best that is offered to them: democracy, their own religion, their values, etc.

For the U.S. to intervene every time there is a doubt about their capacity to make themselves what they want to be is to actually put the focus on an external agent, diverting the precious efforts required to evolve or mature towards a better state, naturally. The Muslims have greatly changed in the course of the last 1000 years; some good, some bad. My thinking is optimistic and I believe many Islamic countries will turn naturally to democracy very soon, maybe in our life time.

But the fact is they did fail, the war was declared on us, and we are merely responding.

Well, if these governments are actually sheltering terrorists, there is certainly something wrong there. But I can't see the West being so protective of Arab interests in general anyway, so it does seem to be balanced somehow, in terms of foreign policy. Fair? no, I think not. But in tone, yes.

As for a war "declared on us". history has shown so far that this war is very limited; 9/11 was certainly a big one, but any other attacks has so far been a minuscule one (possibly due to the effort from the War On Terror) but also due to other factors like the usual disorganizat6ion of Al-Qaeda. In terms of Evil, they could certainly do "better". So the war is of a limited scope, and its focus merely moved outside the Middle East.

In fact, "fail" is putting it rather charitably.

Are you saying they are responsible for the existence of bin Laden? Are you blaming Muslims for the existence of Al Qaeda?

Americans and other westerners have been victimized by terrorism for about 30 years, and the regimes of the region didn't just fail to put an end to it, in many cases, they financed and encouraged it.

May I ask where their finances came from? I mean, these countries sustaining the Islamic terrorist movement, where did they get the resources necessary for their support? And what about financing Saddam Hussein, an already well known dictator, to better control another dictatorship? How does that say for those who were shaking hands with him?

Our patience ended on 9/11, and that (or worse) kind of thing must and will stop.

That took a long time; I mean, those criminal organizations were known for a few years already, were they not? Will you blame Clinton for the inaction? Or Bush Sr for precipitating a situation getting worse by not invading Bagdad on Gulf War I, or by financing the so-called "Freedom Fighters" of Afghanistan?

You might also want to remember that the main victims of Islamic extremism are other Muslims.

True; collaborators always have to pay the price.

This is not us versus them, but the civilized world, including the civilized Muslim world, versus an extreme and insane ideology and its fanatical adherents.

Well, is that not your prejudice talking over simple request as "get out of my country you Americans?"

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

VMarks is right. You'd do better to go back to the source and read books like Sayyid Qutb's Milestones to see the religious well this perverse man draws from. This religious war has been brewing for far longer than 1991. It's basically a war against the modern world.

And Islamic fundamentalism is eerily akin to Christian fundamentalism, which attempts to deny the scientific method, the rights of women, secular education and other aspects of the modern world.

[Buckaroo]

Not only is the following quote the goal of al queda, but I believe is the goal of the islomic nation:

Especially Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed who said:
"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world."

These nuts do not believe in seperation of religion and government, they believe every single person on the planet should be forced to worship thier god with execution as punishment for disobeying.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Not only is the following quote the goal of al queda, but I believe is the goal of the islomic nation:

What islomic nation? Now seriously which islamic nation do you mean?

Taliesin

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What islomic nation? Now seriously which islamic nation do you mean?

Taliesin

I wasn't really certain what words to use. I was in a hurry, so I used islamic nation. What do you recommend? I was trying to group all those waco's that agree with the terroist instructions in the . . . what do you call that trash . . . the koran?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I wasn't really certain what words to use. I was in a hurry, so I used islamic nation. What do you recommend? I was trying to group all those waco's that agree with the terroist instructions in the . . . what do you call that trash . . . the koran?

Just replied to mark what you have said before you change it.

Taliesin

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Just replied to mark what you have said before you change it.

Taliesin

Whatever

[Spliffdaddy]

If we'd simply start calling them "Muslims" instead of "terrorists" - then the problem would get solved quickly.

By the Muslims.